Wes wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

Since the person carrying in the case of Arizona can not imbibe,
what difference is there in carrying in a bar or supermarket?

The shoppers aren't likely to be stupid drunk and like as not at
least a few of the bar patrons will be.


The bar patrons are not supposed to be stupid drunk.

There always will be Wes, at least on occasion.


There are laws
against serving people that are clearly drunk. The person carrying
must be stone cold sober.

I've seen people with half a snootful try and snatch a cops gun away from
him. Something that started out as a joke ended up not being so funny.
There are also other circumstances that would seem less stupid where a gun
might come out that might seem perfectly reasonable or legitimate. Get a job
in any place liquor is served and you'll get an eyeful of the effects and
results even very modest drinking can have on seemingly normal people. You
could also just go down to your local tavern for a beer and chat up the
servers.

My personal feelings are to avoid places
where there could be a confrontation when it is optional.

The best possibility by far.
Way far.


Keep in mind I used bar when I should have added 'and resturants' to
the original reply.

When there is booze, there shouldn't be guns.
It's just my philosophy Wes and tempered by experience.
Anyway, I doubt that anyone will be able to get insurance and I for one
wouldn't want to stake my business or livelihood on the potential outcome,
even if the chance is very small.

This is one of the reasons I've always thought it was nuts for legitimate
businesses to use bootleg software.
The issue of theft aside, everything you have worked so hard is at risk to
save a few bucks if you get caught. That's now way to live, especially if
you have a family counting on you.

Unless Arizona's new law was carefully considered and drafted, it could
easily cause more trouble than the benefit it protects.
The only ones benefiting in the end might be attorneys. Know what I mean?

--
John R. Carroll